CMRL payoff case: Setback for Pinarayi Vijayan, kin as Kerala HC dismisses pleas to appeal against FIR order

The Kerala High Court’s Division Bench refused Pinarayi Vijayan, T. Veena and P.A. Mohamed Riyas permission to appeal the Single Judge’s direction. That direction required an FIR in the ₹278-crore CMRL-Exalogic payoff case. The decision means their immediate request to block or delay that order failed.

The Bench, comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John, said the Single Judge’s order had not removed their right to use constitutional or statutory remedies. It also found that they had not shown a prima facie or arguable case for receiving leave to appeal. The court rejected arguments that they should have been heard before the FIR direction.

The ruling does not decide the accused persons’ guilt or innocence. It allows the FIR-related process to proceed while leaving other legal challenges available. The Bench had reserved its decision on October 14 and delivered it on October 15, 2026.

An FIR, or First Information Report, is the formal record made by police after receiving information about a suspected cognisable offence. It identifies the alleged crime and records the essential information supplied to the authorities. Registering it is an important investigative step, not a finding that the named people are guilty.

In this case, the Single Judge directed registration of an FIR after considering information linked to the alleged CMRL-Exalogic payoff. The Division Bench upheld that position at the appeal stage, saying sufficient material disclosed possible cognisable offences. The court also said a preliminary inquiry was unnecessary in these circumstances.

The immediate effect is that the criminal investigation can move forward through the FIR process. The accused may still pursue constitutional or statutory remedies against registration. The article does not state what investigative steps police will take next or when the investigation will finish.

The CMRL-Exalogic payoff case concerns an alleged ₹278-crore payment arrangement. This is the largest and most prominent figure stated in the report. It gives the case its financial scale and explains why the alleged transactions have attracted criminal-law scrutiny.

The three applicants are former Keralam Chief Minister and current Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and his son-in-law and former Minister P.A. Mohamed Riyas. The report describes them as seeking leave to appeal against an order directing registration of an FIR. It does not provide a breakdown of the alleged amount.

The ₹278-crore figure describes the alleged scale of the payoff case, not a finding that the applicants owe or received that amount. The Division Bench’s ruling concerns whether the FIR could proceed and whether an appeal should be allowed, not the final merits of the allegations.

The Division Bench’s reasoning rested on two points. First, it said the information supplied under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act included sufficient material disclosing cognisable offences. Second, it said accused people in a corruption case have no legal right to be heard before police register an FIR.

That reasoning directly answered the applicants’ complaint that they were not given an opportunity to respond to the Single Judge’s order. The Bench also rejected their demand for a preliminary inquiry before registration. In its view, the material already justified opening the formal criminal process.

The ruling means the court did not treat prior notice to the accused as a necessary condition for registering this FIR. It did not determine guilt or innocence. The accused can still use constitutional or statutory remedies against the registration, because the Bench said those rights were unaffected.

A preliminary inquiry is an initial fact-checking stage used to assess whether information reveals a cognisable offence. Registering an FIR is the formal step that records the allegation and starts the police investigation. The two stages are therefore different: one assesses whether further criminal action is warranted, while the other launches that action.

In this dispute, the State said it was conducting a preliminary inquiry using information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate. The Single Judge set that inquiry aside and directed the FIR’s registration. The Division Bench agreed that no preliminary inquiry was needed because sufficient material had already been supplied under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The practical result is that the case moved directly toward FIR-based investigation. The State had argued it could choose between an inquiry and registration. The ruling says that, on these facts, the available material supported registration without first conducting the preliminary stage.

The Division Bench expressly said its decision did not affect the applicants’ right to pursue constitutional or statutory remedies against registration of the FIR. That is the central legal protection remaining after their request for leave to appeal was rejected. The ruling therefore does not close every route for challenging the criminal process.

The applicants had argued that the Single Judge’s direction foreclosed their options. They said that if a Station House Officer or the State had registered the FIR, they could have challenged it before the court. The Bench rejected the leave applications but did not say that all later challenges were barred.

The article does not identify the exact court filings or remedies the accused may now use. It does establish that such remedies remain legally available. Meanwhile, the direction to register the FIR stands, and the investigation can proceed unless another competent legal process changes or suspends it.

The Enforcement Directorate’s role, as described here, was to provide information about the alleged offences to the State. The State then began a preliminary inquiry based on that information. The dispute was whether the State should continue checking the information first or register an FIR immediately.

The Division Bench referred to information furnished under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It said that when such information contains sufficient material indicating cognisable offences, a preliminary inquiry is unnecessary. The Single Judge therefore set aside the State’s preliminary inquiry and ordered FIR registration.

The article does not say that the Enforcement Directorate itself registered this FIR. It describes the agency as the source of information used by the State. The ruling connects that information to the decision to open the FIR process, while leaving the applicants’ constitutional and statutory remedies intact.